Mendoza v CA

Facts:

1981: Private Respondent, Teopista Toring claims to be the illegitimate child of the petitioner, Casimiro Mendoza.

She alleges that she was born on Aug. 20, 1930 to a Brigida Toring who was then single while Casimiro was married to Emiliana
Barrientos

Her mother was the one who told her that she was his child.

She added that growing up, she was recognized because she was treated as such.

Called him ―Papa Miroy‖, she used to visit him at his house, Casimiro helped her and her husband: he bought a truck for him to
drive and when he sold it, gave the proceeds to the spouses, PR‘s son, Lolito, was allowed to build a house on his lot, He opened a
joint savings account with her as co-depositor

She had two witnesses:

Gaudencio Mendoza (cousin of Casimiro) was informed by petitioner himself that he and Brigida Toring were sweethearts.
Gaudencio was the one whom Casimiro would send to give money to Toring when Teopista was born.

Isaac Mendoza (nephew of Casimiro) was informed by his father (Hipolito, Casimiro’s brother) and his grandmother, Brigida
Mendoza. He also delivered money to Teopista.

Petitioner denied her claims up to his dying day. (May, 1986)

Vicente Toring, who is the recognized illegitimate child of Petitioner and Brigida Toring, says that petitioner is only his half-sister
because she has a different father.

He substitutes for Mendoza in this case after petitioner died.

RTC: rules for petitioner because private respondent failed to show enough evidence to prove of her filiation.

CA: reversed decision. The two witnesses showed truthfulness, there is no reason for them to testify falsely. Vicente Toring would
obviously have more to lose if petitioner wins this case so he has a motive.

Issue: WON Teopista is Casimiro Mendoza‘s illegitimate child?

Held: YES.

Ratio:

Although Teopista failed to show that she was in an open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child of
Casimiro, she has nevertheless established that status by another method.

FC 175 grants the right of illegitimate children to establish their filiation in the same way as legitimate children. FC 172(2) allows
them to prove filiation by ―any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws‖.

In the case at bar, the RTC failed to consider the testimony of Isaac Mendoza as another method of establishing status.

Rule 130, Sec. 39, of the Rules of Court discusses the act or declarations about pedigree being allowed as evidence. It has to
conform to 4 requisites so it won‘t be considered hearsay:

1.The declarant is dead or unable to testify Brigida and Hipolito Mendoza passed away at the time Isaac testified in court.

2.The pedigree must be in issue

Main issue of case!

3.The declaration must be made before the controversy arose

Isaac knew about this before PR filed in court

4.The relationship between the declarant (Brigida/Hipolito) and person whose pedigree is in question

Casimiro) must be shown in evidence other than declaration.

Presentation of extrajudicial partition of the estate of Florencio Mendoza where Casimiro is an heir.

This, including the other evidence presented by PR and witnesses shows that she is the illegitimate daughter of Casimiro